Liberals Discover the Limits of Rationality- They Should Be Worried.

[Denter]

Reason is so much; an ability, a relative state of affairs, a handmade tool, these sorts of things. It's also a really useful way to talk about how things move through vastly different scales of time and space, and along epic gradients of the object/subject relationship. It can be difficult to generalize.

@Denter, don't you suppose that rationality and aesthetics are a feedback loop? We have to check our measurements after all.

Interesting, we obviously respond to logos, pathos and ethos- but which is primary?

 

[TheGreatA]

What was considered "reason" in the 18th century is largely considered bullshit today. And so it will be, several centuries afterwards. Many of our current practises will be looked down upon as irrational, and the end result of deficient minds.

While this is certainly no argument against utilizing one's reason, one should also acknowledge the limits of reason, and be more capable of utilizing their imagination and creativity, alongside rational logic.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'm saying that modern day political movements, call them neoliberalism or neoconservatism, or whatever, believe that people are rational. People are not rational, and rationality barely even matters. Our civilization is not based on rationality, nor are our ethics, nor are the ethics of anyone except the most insane libertarian spergs.

Is it rational for me to consider murder to be wrong?

At the end of the day we need to accept certain axioms to build ideologies on. We see the Golden Rule manifest itself as the basis for many ideologies. Does it matter if this rule is seen as axiomatic?

 

[lfd0311]

I'm saying that modern day political movements, call them neoliberalism or neoconservatism, or whatever, believe that people are rational. People are not rational, and rationality barely even matters. Our civilization is not based on rationality, nor are our ethics, nor are the ethics of anyone except the most insane libertarian spergs.

What you see currently is what always happens to civilizations when they advance so far that they are removed from the every day struggle of survival. Current Western Civilization has advanced to the point where people are pushing crazy political agendas that aren't based really on any sort of actual sense or rationale because they have the luxury of pushing political agendas based on emotion. The Western World today is the apex of human history, and the US specifically is apex of that apex. So a lot of really dumb nonsense is going to come out of that. That doesn't negate the fact that the process of getting there to begin with was entirely based on logic, objective fact and objective reasoning.

 

[Fawlty]

Interesting, we obviously respond to logos, pathos and ethos- but which is primary?

I think we need a better model. For instance Trump fails to the max on logos, is really shaky on ethos, but a juggernaut in pathos. That suggests that pathos came to the front this time around. But even so, it's hard to weight these things. So much ethos/pathos/logos is going on silently in the background of the culture like system software.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think we need a better model. For instance Trump fails to the max on logos, is really shaky on ethos, but a juggernaut in pathos. That suggests that pathos came to the front this time around. But even so, it's hard to weight these things. So much ethos/pathos/logos is going on silently in the background of the culture like system software.

Many of Trump's stances were extremely logical, and it's why he won. For instance, advocating for stronger border control is a position birthed in logic, he just fails at implementing it.

 

[Fawlty]

Many of Trump's stances were extremely logical, and it's why he won. For instance, advocating for stronger border control is a position birthed in logic, he just fails at implementing it.

oh boy

 

[Denter]

oh boy

I've got the best pathos, the best, believe me, incredible pathos.

 

[lfd0311]

oh boy

Go ahead, Fawlty. Take a crack at explaining your position.

 

[Denter]

What you see currently is the top of things that always happen to civilizations when they advance so far that they are removed from the every day struggle of survival. Current Western Civilization has advanced to the point where people are pushing crazy political agendas that aren't based really on any sort of actual sense or rationale because they have the luxury of pushing political agendas based on emotion. The Western World today is the apex of human history, and the US specifically is apex of that apex. So a lot of really dumb nonsense is going to come out of that. That doesn't negate the fact that the process of getting there to begin with was not entirely based on logic, objective fact and objective reasoning.

I think you're really onto something.

 

[panamaican]

Great post.

Here's a thought; who shapes society or causes changes?

Certainly you don't think its some mystical Whig process or Hegelian inevitability? If Culture>>>>>Politics, then who shapes culture? Who watches the watchmen?

Emotion shapes society.

It's a circular process. Some emotional event shapes a person's worldview. They rationalize their emotions into morals and values. Then they go out and try to shape the moral and values of others by appealing to their emotions. Sometimes they rely on logic, sometimes they rely on emotions themselves.

Culture is as flexible as the moral and values that underlie society itself. If a society is driven by the emotion of fear then their culture will reflect it. If it is a society driven by optimism then they will have a culture that reflects that. As the emotional state of a society changes so will the culture.

Insisting that cultures are permanent and unchanging is like insisting that people never change their emotional state. That we're always happy, sad, angry, whatever without change. But that's not true.

An interesting long running study suggests that our personalities at 77 are completely different than our personalities at 14. If (emphasis on if) we're completely different people later in life than we are in our youth, it stands to reason that our morals and values that underlie our culture will change as well. And that means that our culture is probably fluctuating in response to so many factors that we probably shouldn't even argue that any modern culture is identical to that of even 100 years ago.
http://www.sciencealert.com/you-re-...4-and-77-years-old-personality-study-suggests

 

[Denter]

Emotion shapes society.

It's a circular process. Some emotional event shapes a person's worldview. They rationalize their emotions into morals and values. Then they go out and try to shape the moral and values of others by appealing to their emotions. Sometimes they rely on logic, sometimes they rely on emotions themselves.

Culture is as flexible as the moral and values that underlie society itself. If a society is driven by the emotion of fear then their culture will reflect it. If it is a society driven by optimism then they will have a culture that reflects that. As the emotional state of a society changes so will the culture.

Insisting that cultures are permanent and unchanging is like insisting that people never change their emotional state. That we're always happy, sad, angry, whatever without change. But that's not true.

An interesting long running study suggests that our personalities at 77 are completely different than our personalities at 14. If (emphasis on if) we're completely different people later in life than we are in our youth, it stands to reason that our morals and values that underlie our culture will change as well. And that means that our culture is probably fluctuating in response to so many factors that we probably shouldn't even argue that any modern culture is identical to that of even 100 years ago.
http://www.sciencealert.com/you-re-...4-and-77-years-old-personality-study-suggests

Are you suggesting that the real leaders of society are those that are able to implement aesthetic states on the most people?

 

[panamaican]

Are you suggesting that the real leaders of society are those that are able to implement aesthetic states on the most people?

I don't know. I'm hesitant on the term aesthetic. I'd say the real leaders of society are those people most capable of shaping the emotional state of those they engage. If that's what "aesthetic states" means, then yes.

 

[Denter]

I don't know. I'm hesitant on the term aesthetic. I'd say the real leaders of society are those people most capable of shaping the emotional state of those they engage. If that's what "aesthetic states" means, then yes.

German Romanticism vindicated again.

 

[panamaican]

German Romanticism vindicated again.

Damnit, another term I need to look up.

 

[unimackpass]

Apparently everyone who's responding to a post I made that said "who hate immigrants". Was like an accidental bat signal that's actually just a flashlight.

Quite the imagination you got there.

 

[Bloodworth]

Is this trying to rationalize the thought process of a liberal, that's a twisted road to travel.
They are mental, end of story.

 

[Lex Bigelow]

Psuedointellectual

 

[Thurisaz]

Liberals and rationality don't belong in the same sentence with each other.

I mean, it's true from a very superficial point, but I think there's a common foundation that's universal.

The problem isn't as much that the contents of the moral code were that different - like you said they're remarkably similar in most content - it's just that most of them have separate standards of behavior concerning ingroups and outgroups. Only the West has ever embraced an universal moral system that even tries to consider everyone a member of the ingroup.

This leads me to believe that basic morality really is universal. We simply have to iron out what constitutes morality in each historical context.

Your sentences contradict each other here, the first implies an universal morality, the second a particular one. And I do dispute the second: Because the human animal is fundamentally the same throughout its history in the sense that its needs and biological imperatives do not change, that also logically means that what is good for it is also consistent. Therefore good and evil do not change. They are what they are and for them to change would require that the fundamental truths about the human animal changed as well. Particularist moral systems try justifying evil by treating life as a zero sum game and consider antisocial behavior towards the alien neutral if not good.

I really appreciated your post, many good thoughts there.

 

[Space]

LOL at "coöperation."

Try-hards.